install_mcp_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a state change (installing) but omits details about side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing configurations), authentication needs, error conditions, or what the response contains (no output schema). This lack of transparency makes it harder for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or redundancies.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of output schema, the description should explain the result of installation (e.g., success indicator or server config). It also fails to mention prerequisites like project existence or permissions. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects and usage context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds only that transport is 'optional', which repeats the schema. It does not provide additional semantic meaning, such as valid transport values or how the client parameter affects behavior. Per the guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'install a project as an MCP server into a target client', which is specific and action-oriented. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_mcp_servers, create_mcp_server, and get_mcp_project_installed, making its unique purpose evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for installation tasks but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like update_mcp_server or delete_mcp_server. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context of sibling tools gives some implicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.